Terry A. Coffing joined MAC Law in September of 1993 after serving as a summer clerk in 1992. Since his admission to the Minnesota State Bar Association in 1992 and the State Bar of Nevada in 1993, Mr. Coffing has gained a diverse litigation background. He is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Coffing has presided and litigated numerous jury and bench trials in state and federal court in Nevada and in other states. He has obtained several multi-million dollar verdicts and served as defense counsel in multi-million dollar claims on behalf of his client. Prior to coming to MAC, Mr. Coffing served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jack Lehman in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Las Vegas as well as clerking for the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. Mr. Coffing also serves on the Board of Governors of the Nevada State Bar.

In his spare time Mr. Coffing is a horrible golfer, an automotive enthusiast and an avid skier. He also enjoys spending time with his wife Jayne, their children, Abigail and Hayden, and their four dogs.

Lawyer Bio

Terry A. Coffing joined MAC Law in September of 1993 after serving as a summer clerk in 1992. Since his admission to the Minnesota State Bar Association in 1992 and the State Bar of Nevada in 1993, Mr. Coffing has gained a diverse litigation background. He is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Coffing has presided and litigated numerous jury and bench trials in state and federal court in Nevada and in other states. He has obtained several multi-million dollar verdicts and served as defense counsel in multi-million dollar claims on behalf of his client. Prior to coming to MAC, Mr. Coffing served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jack Lehman in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Las Vegas as well as clerking for the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. Mr. Coffing also serves on the Board of Governors of the Nevada State Bar.

In his spare time Mr. Coffing is a horrible golfer, an automotive enthusiast and an avid skier. He also enjoys spending time with his wife Jayne, their children, Abigail and Hayden, and their four dogs.

Lawyer Case History

In upholding an award of $968,070 in punitive damages against Countrywide, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified that implied malice is
an independent basis to award punitive damages. The court explained that
conscious disregard, which is the mental element for proving implied malice,
does not need to be supported by evidence of actual knowledge of intent to
harm. Instead, to establish conscious disregard, there only needs to be some
conduct that goes beyond mere recklessness or gross negligence. The court also
clarified that testimony at trial, coupled with documentary evidence of
converted personal property, is sufficient to establish the special value of
the personal property.

The Nevada Supreme Court clarified the ambiguous language of Nevada Revised Statutes 439.365 and held that Clark County
does not have the right to interfere with the dedicated funding stream from
existing tax revenues used to fund the Southern Nevada Health District. The Supreme Court also clarified that a writ
of prohibition is not available against non-judicial government actors, but the
relief sought must be characterized as mandamus under Nevada Revised Statutes
Chapter 34.

Wheble v. District Court, 128 Nev. 119, 272 P.3d 134 (2012)

In determining whether the District Court can apply Nevada’s savings statute (Nevada Revised Statutes 11.500) to save otherwise time-barred
medical malpractice claims, the Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada Revised Statutes
11.500 does not save medical malpractice claims that have been dismissed
because the failure to comply with the strict affidavit requirements of Nevada Revised
Statutes 41A.071 deems the claims void ab
initio. Nevada Revised Statutes
11.500 applies only to actions that have been “commenced.” Since the complaint was dismissed for failure
to comply with the strict affidavit requirements, the complaint never legally
existed; thus, the action was never commenced.
As such, Nevada Revised Statutes 11.500(1) does not apply to actions
dismissed for failure to comply with Nevada Revised Statutes 41A.071.

The Nevada Supreme Court granted a writ petition directing the District Court to apply the factors in Shelton v. American Motors Corp.,
805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986) in deciding whether an opposing party’s prior
attorney can be deposed. Under the Shelton analysis, the party seeking
to depose an opposing attorney must demonstrate that the information sought: (1)
cannot be obtained by other means; (2) is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3)
is crucial to the preparation of the case.

Contact Terry A. Coffing

If you would like this lawyer to contact you directly in regards to a legal matter, please fill in the relative information below. The lawyer will then be sent your inquiry.

* Denotes Required Fields

Error Sending Message!

Your message was sent successfully!

Legal Disclaimer:Any information sent to Best Lawyers® or referred to a lawyer listed in Best Lawyers® via Internet e-mail or through the Best Lawyers® Web site is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. Communication with Best Lawyers® or an Lawyer listed in Best Lawyers® via Internet e-mail through this site does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. Best Lawyers® does not necessarily endorse, and is not responsible for, any third-party content that may be accessed through this website.

Add Comment

In making your comments, please do not refer to a pending legal matter.

(*) Required Fields

I give permission for this quote to appear with my name attribution.

There was an error during saving, please try again.
If you continue to get this message, please contact us at info@bestlawyers.com or 803.648.0300 for assistance.